Disclaimer

"Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

April 05, 2010

"60 Minutes" and "Newshour" Take Different Approaches to Covering Gene Patenting Story

On
Sunday, the CBS news program "60 Minutes" examined the issue of gene
patenting in a segment entitled "Patented Genes."During the segment, CBS News
correspondent Morley Safer interviewed Lisbeth Ceriani and Genae Girard, who
were recently diagnosed with breast cancer and who are plaintiffs in the Association of Molecular Pathology v. U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office case that was decided a week ago (see "Round One Goes to the ACLU"); Professor
Lori Andrews of the Chicago-Kent
College of Law in Chicago; Dr. Aubrey Milunsky,
Co-Director for the Center for Human Genetics and Professor of Human Genetics,
Pediatrics, Pathology, and Obstetrics & Gynecology at the Boston University
School of Medicine; Patent Docs
author Dr. Kevin Noonan, a partner with
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP; and Chris Hansen,
Senior National Staff Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and
co-counsel for plaintiffs in AMP v. USPTO.In view of the individuals Mr. Safer
chose to interview for the segment, it should really come as no surprise that "60
Minutes" failed to provide viewers with an objective report on the issue.

During
the segment, which clocked in at just over thirteen and a half minutes, Mr.
Safer devoted about three and a half minutes to Ms. Ceriani's and Ms. Girard's
stories, and about a minute and a half each to Prof. Andrews, Dr. Milunsky, Dr.
Noonan, and Mr. Hansen.The
position of the plaintiffs and their counsel was not unexpected, but joining
them in opposing gene patenting were Prof. Andrews and Dr. Milunsky.Patent
Docs readers may recall that in December of 2006, Prof. Andrews and
author Michael Critchton spoke out against gene patents in a Parade.com article (see "Gene Patenting in the News Again").And during Dr. Milunsky's portion of the
"60 Minutes" segment, the Boston University researcher discussed how he had
been prevented from performing genetic analysis on a number of genes that had been patented by biotech
companies.If "60
Minutes" returns to the issue (for example, if and when the AMP v. USPTO case is appealed), one hopes that its panel of
interviewees will be more balanced and the reporting more fair.

"60
Minutes" could, for example, take a cue from the manner in which the PBS "Newshour"
covered the story last Friday in a segment entitled "Can Genes Be
Patented?Ruling Reignites Debate."Instead of tipping the scales decidedly
in favor of the AMP plaintiffs,
"Newshour" host Jeffrey Brown discussed the issue of gene patenting with
Daniel Ravicher, the executive director of
the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) and co-counsel for plaintiffs in AMP v. USPTO, and Dr. Kenneth Chahine, a
visiting professor of law at the University of Utah and former President and
Chief Executive Officer at Avigen.And while the "Newshour" afforded Mr. Ravicher just under
three and a half minutes to state his case, Dr. Chahine received almost three
minutes to defend gene patenting.Mr. Brown, who did not reveal his own position on the issue, also did a
commendable job of questioning both individuals.

Comments

Don,

As I've noted earlier, the 60 Minutes segment was biased in extreme. No way that Kevin got a fair opportunity to present the other side of this story. I had to bite my tongue throughout I was so angry at the factual, scientific, and legal distortion of the issues. No doubt about it, there was no fairness or objectivity in this segment. The "Kool-Aid" drinking on the 60 Minutes web site on this segment is unreal.

Given the past performance of "60 Minutes" is anyone surprised? The general slant has been strongly left wing (i.e., statist and anti-corporate) as long as I can remember, both in terms of the selection of issues and in their presentation.

Thanks for doing the "homework" 60 Minutes failed to do. Why doesn't this surprise me? This whole 60 Minutes segment is a farce, a travesty and an insult to reporting the facts, science, and law anywhere near accurately or objectively. But try to convince the "Kool-Aid" drinkers of that who are submitting most of the comments on the 60 Minutes web site.

Yes Kev, but unfortunately those extra little pieces were only about 1.5 minutes each. So, total, you might have gotten 3 minutes yourself. Either way, you didn't get to touch on much of the interesting stuff like they did in this new broadcast. However, even in this broadcast they barely scratch the surface.

The arguments can't be biased if they are against patenting genes. Why? Because genes, as they exist, are not patentable. It would be like saying an argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is biased because it doesn't give enough discussion for the 2 + 2 = 11 crowd.